INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(1), SURAT, SURAT vs. SUNIL MITTAL HUF , SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.520/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) The Ito, Vs. Sunil Mittal Huf, Ward – 1(3)(1), 101, Mahadev Park, Kailash Nagar, Surat Ghod Dod Road, Surat – 395007. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aamhs7185Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Appellant By Shri Kiran K. Shah, Ca Respondent By Date Of Hearing 15/12/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21/12/2023

purchase.” 11. The assessee has also submitted before ld CIT(A) that the entire amount should not be treated as bogus and reasonable gross profit at the rate of 5% shall be added to the total income of assessee in wake of various judicial precedence pronounced by ITAT. However, it was observed by ld CIT(A) that the assessee

RAVI MAHEXA,DAMAN AND DIU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DAMAN WARD, DAMAN

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.193 To 195/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ravi Mahexa, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, 7Th 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Vapi, Fortune Square, Floor, 8Th Floor & 9Th Floor, Ii, Ground, Daman, Daman – 396210, Daman & Diu (Ut) Chala Road, Vapi-396191 Ravi Mahexa Income Tax Officer, Daman 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Ward, Daman Jevanji Ground, Daman, Daman & Diu (Ut) - Apartment, Kavi Khabardar 396210 Road, Daman-396210 Vapi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apkpm1888H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Minal Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2023

bogus purchases. (Similar disallowance in ITA No.193/SRT/2022 at Rs.1,62,163/-) (v) Ground No.1 raised by the assessee, in ITA No. 193/SRT/2022, is as follows: “On the facts on the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.49

RAVI MAHEXA,DAMAN AND DIU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5, , VAPI

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.193 To 195/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ravi Mahexa, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, 7Th 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Vapi, Fortune Square, Floor, 8Th Floor & 9Th Floor, Ii, Ground, Daman, Daman – 396210, Daman & Diu (Ut) Chala Road, Vapi-396191 Ravi Mahexa Income Tax Officer, Daman 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Ward, Daman Jevanji Ground, Daman, Daman & Diu (Ut) - Apartment, Kavi Khabardar 396210 Road, Daman-396210 Vapi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apkpm1888H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Minal Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2023

bogus purchases. (Similar disallowance in ITA No.193/SRT/2022 at Rs.1,62,163/-) (v) Ground No.1 raised by the assessee, in ITA No. 193/SRT/2022, is as follows: “On the facts on the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.49

RAVI MAHEXA,DAMAN AND DIU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DAMAN WARD, DAMAN

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.193 To 195/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2015-16 To 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ravi Mahexa, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, 7Th 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Vapi, Fortune Square, Floor, 8Th Floor & 9Th Floor, Ii, Ground, Daman, Daman – 396210, Daman & Diu (Ut) Chala Road, Vapi-396191 Ravi Mahexa Income Tax Officer, Daman 14/55, Dilipnagar Near Dilip Nagar Ward, Daman Jevanji Ground, Daman, Daman & Diu (Ut) - Apartment, Kavi Khabardar 396210 Road, Daman-396210 Vapi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apkpm1888H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Minal Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2023

bogus purchases. (Similar disallowance in ITA No.193/SRT/2022 at Rs.1,62,163/-) (v) Ground No.1 raised by the assessee, in ITA No. 193/SRT/2022, is as follows: “On the facts on the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.49

SHAH MAGANLAL GULABCHAND CHOKSI,SURAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

bogus purchase of the goods. The purchases and sales both are required to be omitted in such case and as assessee has shown the profit on this transaction, there cannot be any addition. The CIT(A) deleted this addition on the ground that he already confirmed the addition of Rs.4 crores relating to the sales shown to M/s. Nirav

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, SURAT vs. SHAH MAGANLAL GULABCHAND CHOKSI, SURAT

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

bogus purchase of the goods. The purchases and sales both are required to be omitted in such case and as assessee has shown the profit on this transaction, there cannot be any addition. The CIT(A) deleted this addition on the ground that he already confirmed the addition of Rs.4 crores relating to the sales shown to M/s. Nirav

SMT. RENUKABEN UMEDSING PARMAR,,NA vs. ARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER,, NAVSARI

In the result, Ground No.1 of the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2493/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Smt.Renukaben Umedsinh Parmar, Vs The Income Tax Officer, Old Patel Street, . Ward-3, Navsari At & P.O.Kukeri, Taluka – Chikhli, District - Navsari – 396 321. [Pan: Aiopp 5256 D] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओर से /Assessee By Shri Tarun Ghia – Ar राज"वक"ओर से /Revenue By Smt. Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr

69A deals with unexplained money of which assessee is found to be the owner. The explanation /reply furnished by assessee was not accepted by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer in para 4.2 of the assessment order recorded that in order to verify the genuineness of agricultural produce, the enquiries were caused. And on verification, it was found that agricultural

ADDIL MOHAMADELIYAS KAPADIA,SURAT vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, SURAT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby ordered to be allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri O.P.Meena, Am

bogus purchase. 4. The statement of Shri Tosif Kapadia was recorded u/s 131 of the Act on 22.07.2013 in which he admitted that during the F.Y.2012-13 he received certain third party cheques in carrying out his business of Dalali in Textiles and trading in textiles. He further admitted that he discounted cheques of Rs.8.56 crores received by him as trading

SHREE GANESH KHAND UDHYOG,,BHARUCH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2), BHARUCH

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby ordered to be allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri O.P.Meena, Am

bogus purchase. 4. The statement of Shri Tosif Kapadia was recorded u/s 131 of the Act on 22.07.2013 in which he admitted that during the F.Y.2012-13 he received certain third party cheques in carrying out his business of Dalali in Textiles and trading in textiles. He further admitted that he discounted cheques of Rs.8.56 crores received by him as trading

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3,, SURAT vs. M/S. SAI ENTERPRISE,, SURAT

In the result, penalty appeal for A

Bench: C .M. Garg & O. P. Meenaआ सं अ

purchase of flats which were not recorded in the books and withdrawn by the partners of the firm. It was further submitted that the said receipts were declared though not recorded in the books of accounts are of the character of business receipts as soon as disclosure is admitted, the same is recorded in the books of accounts, closed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2(3)(1), SURAT vs. HITESH B PONKIA HUF, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

69A of the Act in the disguise of exempted long term capital gains on\naccount of sale of the share of JRI Industries and Infrastructure Limited, a penny\nstock and without appreciating the findings of the Assessing Officer that the price\nmovement of the company were not supported by financial fundamentals of the\ncompany?\n(ii) On the facts

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, SURAT, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, MAJURA GATE, SURAT vs. ROYAL DEVELOPERS, NR. IP MISSION SCHOOL, MUGLISA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

69A of the Act observing that substantial amount was declared under IDS even though the declaration was never related to this unexplained investment totaling 1,07,38,774/-. 3) In addition to the ground no. 1 & 2 above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing

INCOME TAX OFFICER 331, MAJURA GATE SURAT vs. SHARDABEN GORDHANBHAI ASODARIA, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

bogus\nclaim of LTCG. The assessee had submitted all the evidential evidences to prove\nthe genuineness of the transactions pertaining to the purchase and sales of\nshares, which were made through online digital platform through recognized\nstock exchange and recognized broker. The assessee also paid STT and receipt of\nsuch sale and purchases were through banking channel. Accordingly, he held

CHANDULAL A.SHAH(HUF),SURAT vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee, Ind for A

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं././././I.T.A Nos.83 & 84/Srt/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2000-01 & 2004-05 1.Chandulal Amrutlal Shah (Huf), V. Income Tax Officer, Bunglow No.74, Saifee Society, Ward-3(3)(1), Surat. L.H. Road, Surat-395 006. [Pan: Aaahc 8116 R] 2.Chandulal Amrutlal Shah, V. Income Tax Officer, Bunglow No.74, Saifee Society, Ward-3(3)(1), Surat. L.H. Road, Surat-395 006. [Pan: Adaps 5844 F] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""थ"/Respondent

69A of the Act. 26. The AO noted that the balance sheet of the assessee had shown investment in factory shed of Rs. 3,85,741 and flat purchase amount of Rs. 95,251 totaling to Rs. 4,80,992 not shown in the balance sheet for the period under consideration, hence, same was treated as unexplained expenditure under section

ARVIND G. VALVI, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(3),SURAT, SURAT vs. SWEETY GEMS PRIVATE LIMITED, SURAT

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.975/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Hearing) The Ito, Vs. Sweety Gems Pvt. Ltd., Ward -2(1)(3), 101, Nishit Diamond Complex, Gujjar Surat Falia, Haripura, Surat - 395003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aancs4270N (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.29/Srt/2024 (Arising In Ita No.975/Srt/2024) Assessment Year: (2014-15) Sweety Gems Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Ito, 101, Nishit Diamond Complex, Gujjar Ward -2(1)(3), Falia, Haripura, Surat - 395003 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aancs4270N (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 69A of the Act as the assessee neither in the assessment proceedings nor in the appeal proceedings produced any cogent evidences to prove that the amount credited in the bank account pertains to its business receipts. (ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that during

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR.-3, SURAT vs. SH. HARESHBHAI MOHANBHAI SAKARIYA, SURAT

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiit(Ss)A No.01/Srt/2021 (Ay 2010-11) It(Ss)A No.09/Srt/2020 (Ay 2014-15) (Hearing In Physical Court) Deputy Commissioner Of Shri Dineshchandra D Income-Tax, Central Circle- Koradia, 3Room No.507, 5Th Floor, 9/10, Dayanand Society, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura B/H.Navyug College, Gate, Surat-395001 Rander Road, Surat Pan No: Acupk 3696 A Assistant Commissioner Of Vs Income-Tax, Central Circle-3, Room No.507, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Appellant / Revenue Respondent /Assessee

69A of the Act merely on the basis of statement of third party which cannot be considered in case of assessee. 9. On merit, the Ld. AR of the assessee submits that during assessment as well as before Ld. CIT(A), the assessee furnished complete evidence to prove the genuineness of transaction, identity of party and creditworthiness of the lender

ISHWARBHAI SHANTILAL PATEL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

bogus payments and the assessee made adjustment by giving payments through cheques to M/s Mirza Traders and in turn received back cash under the guise of purchase and the explanation offered by the assessee is not satisfactory. Thus, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 10,17,870 u/s 69C as unexplained expenditure to that extent. The Assessing Officer also

JIGNESH RAJKUMAR MEHTA,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), SURAT

In the result, assessee`s appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.105/Srt/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Virtual Hearing) Jignesh Rajkumar Mehta, Vs. The Dcit, Circle-2(1)(1), 48, Sankalp Society, Ghod Dod Road, Surat. Bhatar, Surat – 395007. (Assessee) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adbpm2561Q Assessee By Shri Umesh Dalal, Ar Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2023

69A of the Act and Assessing Officer Jignesh Rajkuamr Mehta stated that the total income assessed should be taxed u/s 115 BBE of the Act @ 60%. 10. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who has confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved by the order